Dear Editor,

Respect seems to be the trending topic, so I can’t help but comment on MP Jensen-Webster’s concern about of the budget’s lack of respect for St. Maarten’s MPs’ airline seating.

The other day I was at the courthouse annex (the former Parliament building on Back Street) and noticed what appears to be a serious lack of respect for St. Maarten’s Judiciary. Their building needs powerwashing to remove pigeon dirt, its eaves are broken and in need of repainting, the front door latch is missing, the door itself requires re-varnishing.

Tourists have eyes. The government should be far more cognizant of those than of MPs’ “seats.”

Pamela Sims

Dear Editor,

I am not certain if I would have written that letter from miss Joslyn Morton concerning Dimar Labega to you. I believe it is too personal (in a positive sense). Because it is a great teaching moment for, and I dare say, all the members of Parliament. I would have written that letter via you to all the members of Parliament in general. Because it continues to be proven that by blindly voting along party lines one will continue to be a follower, I sincerely hope that all members of Parliament will take that advice to MP Dimar Labega personally and retain it.

With the same breath I would like to add that had MP Roseburg asked a little further, she too would have known that the police as well as government has a history concerning DUI since 2000. I stand corrected but at that time there were already talks by the then government about a special machine which would cost Fls. 250,000.

Also that Holland was prepared to give instructions to those who would be selected to apply the DUI tests.. No disrespect meant, but this is part of the reason why I find myself reacting to those persons who would like be respected as leaders.

To lead, one has to consist of leaders material. I would be the last person to think I know it all, and I will never venture to contest something that I am not well versed in. I believe in asking questions.

Russell A. Simmons

~ Reflecting on the Partition Treaty ~

Dear Editor,

The Partition Treaty, or Treaty of Concordia, purportedly signed on March 23, 1648, divided the Caribbean island of St. Martin between French and Dutch imperial, slaveholding and colonial interests.

According to articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty of Concordia, the majority of the people, the enslaved African men, women, and children of St. Martin, were, based on the French and Dutch laws of the day, property of the European slave owners.

The Black people were neither the “inhabitants” nor the “persons” referred to in what was significantly a business agreement to facilitate the exploitation of the salt and other material resources (art 5) in the two colonial territories.

That the enslaved people would have been ordered to pick, carry, and pile the stones that marked the supposed spot or location on Concordia hill where the treaty was said to have been signed, may be explored as legend or as our actual lot.

Such an exercise could be done with the same power that we pursue critical knowledge of the merciless, unreparated labor in the great ponds, building of the fortifications, mansions and mills, and the hewing, hauling, sowing, picking, and harvesting on the plantations and from the salt marshes by our ancestors, driven as beasts under the slavers’ lash.

Know about the Concordia treaty as a historical marker, yes; but beyond that it might best be left as a simple historical curiosity, along the same lines as Peter Stuyvesant losing part of his right leg during his being part of the Dutch military leadership of the 1644 attack on the Spanish occupiers of St. Martin.

The Treaty of Concordia is not a festive day for the emancipated St. Martin nation.

And how would this accord be maintained as a “national” day in an independent St. Martin – beyond the adjusted autonomy authorized by France and the Netherlands respectively in 2007 and 2010 for the North and South of our island?

The Partition Treaty is neither a founding text nor a seminal constitution of the truly liberated St. Martin nation. To our humanity this would be unmanly and detestable; and the French and Dutch nationality cannot absolve or solve what is the inherent evil at the very cornerstone of the Treaty of Concordia, and that is the dehumanization of the African or Black people of St. Martin as expressed, reinforced, and never corrected in that European accord.

The Partition Treaty of 1648 is not a thing of love, nor a celebration of the unity that was nurtured and consolidated most during the Traditional Period (1848-1963) by the people, individuals and families of the villages and towns of the St. Martin nation.

The Concordia treaty is not the foundation of this fraternal and familial unity of the St. Martin nation; a unity whose indivisibility we should be duty bound to honor, live, and fight for if needs be; a unity that is invariably forged best by all of the people – past, present, and the evolving future – of the South and North of our beloved Caribbean island, which is in the 21^st century still a colony, by various names, of the Dutch Kingdom and the French Republic.

By Lasana M. Sekou

The above is an abstract version from an unfinished paper. © by Lasana M. Sekou.

Dear Editor,

Permit me to render some words of advice to the best-dressed male Member of Parliament, Dimar Labega. MP, before I dive into the meat of the matter, I must express my admiration to you, for always being so well-groomed and well-attired, every time you attend the meetings of parliament. Your dress code consistently reflects the position that you hold; no matter if the deliberations are slated for Central Committee Meetings or Public Meetings.

Having said that, my main objective for this article is to encourage you to read a lot more, but especially on the topics that are expected to be tabled for upcoming discussions. It would be a pragmatic move for you to seek information that requires extensive knowledge, from those who can share valuable experiences, in order for you to be better equipped to dialogue the issues that are before you, at any given time.

This approach would give you not just leverage over the information, but it also increases your flexibility for a more effective participation, whether the agenda requires short or extensive discussions. I can see that you have the willingness to learn, because you are always present (through active listening), whenever your teammates are discussing an issue. Even though you are not as vocal as you should be, you still remain attentive, no matter who the speaker is.

This kind of attitude speaks to your character and it is also a very critical aspect of learning. Therefore, I’d like to propose that you extend this mindset to deep conversations, with persons who are willing to share that knowledge. MP Dimar Labega, for starters, you don’t have to look very far, because within your reach you have a master of politics in the person of Chairlady Sarah Wescot-Williams.

Why don’t you invite her out on a couple of occasions for breakfast or lunch, to kick off the initiative? But be sure that the request is genuine. It would be wise to choose your topics beforehand, go with an open mind and be ready to pick her brains at every opportunity that will be presented to you. The intention is to learn, so your job is to listen well, observe, interject when necessary, and take notes.

Besides Chairlady Wescot-Williams, you have your dad, Erno Labega, who was in the political arena when ethics, humility and compassion were important aspects of politics. You can extend the same invitation to him, not as a family member, but as a teacher who can share his experiences when he was in active politics. I’m sure that you both have had countless discussions of a similar nature, but this time it will be different.

Do you know why? It is because you will be taking the initiative to direct the conversations, based on your experience as a new Member of Parliament – someone who is seeking the knowledge to improve on your communication skills, so that you could further represent your community, rather than just hearing the information around the family table. When you take control of the situation, you are always in a better position to direct the conversation.

To complete this mission, you cannot exclude the wisdom of your Great Aunt Jas Labega – a legendary sports enthusiast and a contestant in the political field back then. What a treat and honor it would be to give her that opportunity to flood your mind with the memories of politics in the past! Get to know her feelings of modern-day politics and how you can fuse elements of the past into today’s era, to benefit your initiative.

Here is where your job in parliament really begins, because it stimulates that urge for you to research the laws and policies that pertain to parliament and government. I recommended a change of environment because the setting to receive any information plays a vital role in collecting, processing, analyzing and the dissemination of that same knowledge.

This is critical, because during the 2025 budget debate when an MP brought a motion forward and it was rejected, he could not defend it, because he just regurgitated the information that was given to him.

MP Labega, I encourage you to develop that thirst for knowledge and maintain the image that replicates the legislative branch of government, that you represent.

Joslyn Morton